Effects of Dictation, Speech to Text, and Handwriting on the Written Composition of Elementary School English Language Learners

References

• Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281–298. doi:10.1037/a0019318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alves, R. A., Limpo, T., Fidalgo, R., Carvalhais, L., Pereira, L. Á., & Castro, S. L. (2015). The impact of promoting transcription on early text production: Effects on bursts and pauses, levels of written language, and writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 665–679. doi:10.1037/edu0000089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babayiğit, S. (2014). Contributions of word-level and verbal skills to written expression: Comparison of learners who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2). Reading and Writing, 27, 1207–1229. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9482-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, S. W., Llosa, L., & Fredrick, T. (2013). The challenges of writing exposition: Lessons from a study of ELL and non-ELL high school students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 358–380. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.758938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112. doi:10.2307/1511269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger, V. W., & Chanquoy, L. (2012). What writing is and how it changes across early and middle childhood development. In E. L. Grigorenko E. Mambrino & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 65–84). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (2000). Is graphic activity cognitively costly? A developmental approach. Reading and Writing, 13, 183–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plaas R. Moreno & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coniam, D. (1999). Voice recognition software accuracy with second language speakers of English. System, 27, 49–64. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(98)00049-9
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, A. (2016). Writing development and instruction for English language learners. In C. A. MacArthur S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 364–376). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins, J. (2008). Technology, literacy, and young second language learners. In L. L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 61–98). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173–182. doi:10.2307/1511284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.2.203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Carbonaro, M. (2000). Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 592–603. doi:10.2307/3587748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodigovic, M. (2013). Intelligent sentence writing tutor: A system development cycle. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 22, 141–160.
   Google Scholar
• Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 577–589. doi:10.1037/a0014702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, J. T., Heller, K. W., Fowler, L. P., Alberto, P. A., Fredrick, L. D., & O’Rourke, C. M. (2011). Using speech recognition software to increase writing fluency for individuals with physical disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 25–41. doi:10.1177/016264341102600104
   Google Scholar
• Geva, E. (2014). Introduction: The cross-language transfer journey—A guide to the perplexed. Written Language and Literacy, 17(1), 1–15. doi:10.1075/wll.17.1.01gev
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, G. L., Goegan, L. D., Jalbert, R., McManus, K., Sinclair, K., & Spurling, J. (2016). Predictors of spelling and writing skills in first- and second-language learners. Reading and Writing, 29, 69–89. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9580-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, G. L., Ogle, K. C., & Keilty, M. (2013). Linguistic, reading, and transcription influences on kindergarten writing in children with English as a second language. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 61–87. doi:10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.3
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388. doi:10.1177/0741088312451260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2009). Relationships between idea generation and transcription. In C. Bazerman R. Krut K. Lunsford S. McLeod S. Null P. Rogers & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 166–180). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Communication, 23, 135–149. doi:10.1177/0741088306286283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Merlens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 159–190.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 311–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liaw, M. L. (2014). The affordance of speech recognition technology for EFL learning in an elementary school setting. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 79–93. doi:10.1080/17501229.2012.756491
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 93–103. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00283.x
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58. doi:10.1177/001440290407100103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42. doi:10.1177/002246698702100304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325. doi:10.1007/bf01464076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, 3, 51–68. doi:10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.3
   Google Scholar
• Millar, D. C., McNaughton, D. B., & Light, J. C. (2005). A comparison of accuracy and rate of transcription by adults with learning disabilities using a continuous speech recognition system and a traditional computer keyboard. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18, 12–22.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• Nuance Communications. (2010). Dragon NaturallySpeaking 11 user guide. Retrieved from http://supportcontent.nuance.com/dragon/11/manual/ENX/usergd.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L. (2009). Children’s cognitive effort and fluency in writing: Effects of genre and of handwriting automatisation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 299–308. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7, 39–62.
   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 337–346. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2015). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 225–265. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savage, R., Kozakewich, M., Genesee, F., Erdos, C., & Haigh, C. (2016). Predicting writing development in dual language instructional contexts: Exploring cross‐linguistic relationships. Developmental Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/desc.12406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., & Huang, Y. M. (2014). Review of Speech-to-Text Recognition Technology for Enhancing Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 65–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, D.-S. (2014). Web 2.0 tools and academic literacy development in a US urban school: A case study of a second-grade English Language Learner. Language and Education, 28, 68–85. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.771653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silió, M. C., & Barbetta, P. M. (2010). The effects of word prediction and text-to-speech technologies on the narrative writing skills of Hispanic students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25, 17–32. doi:10.1177/016264341002500402
   Google Scholar
• Tillema, M., van den Bergh, J., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2013). Quantifying the quality difference between L1 and L2 essays: A rating procedure with bilingual raters and L1 and L2 benchmark essays. Language Testing, 30, 71–97. doi:10.1177/0265532212442647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance, M. (2016). Understanding planning in text production. In C. A. MacArthur S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 72–87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24, 203–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2013). Technology and second language writing: A framework-based synthesis of research. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Exploring technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 298–312). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar